[Magazines] Motorsport News is now a tabloid!

[silver bullet]

Seeing the front cover of this weeks MN disgusted me. I expected a black framed picture of Micheal Park, but to see the wrecked car, clearly with occupants still inside I think is completely out of order.
Recently MN has been showing more pictures of accidents, which may be ok if no one is injured, but also in this weeks issue was a picture of someone getting run over by their own car.
Do the editors think this is what we want to see, or are they trying to turn MN into a gutter publication.

[richard_sykes]

Did anybody see the Suns "Ashes to Crashes" title, thought it was a little out of order TBH.

[COLIN STUBBS]

i agree sb. its not very nice. ok if its a nasty prang that no one got hurt in then its not so bad,but to put a photo on the front page with the crew still in the car is discusting,and in bad taste.mine was on my desk at work and everyone here that saw it said the same.its in the bin.
i hate to think how anyone connected with the tragedy must feel seeing something like that.

[BertMk2]

The cover of the issue after Gerry Marshall died was the right way to do it - simple photo of the man and a tribute. I haven't seen this weeks yet so I can't really comment too much but it does sound as if it's lacking is taste, respect and decency.

[Knowlesy]

Yes, it is pretty disgusting from MN. Highly unprofessional. It's the only picture I've seen of the accident and it's on the front bloody cover. I'd rather not have seen it.

I immediately cast my mind back to the Gerry Marshall issue, which was ideally done. You didn't see a picture of Gerry slumped at the wheel in that issue did you? Rightly so.

[Chris Y]

MN has been slowly turning into a tabloid for a few years now. Either that or a lad's mag. Or both..

[eddsc]

Presumably the Autosport cover is the same photograph - or a similar one.
The glossier weekly states in its editorial today that poor Michael Park was an Autosport reader: presumably his family were too.
I just don't know what those poor people are supposed to think when they see a cover or covers like that.

[Ian Sowman]

I too have noticed the increasing number of 'crash' pictures in MN (a publication that I write for on a freelance basis). I find it a little bit cheap - often there is a big photo or sequence, probably at the expense of some real or interesting news, usually with the line "John Crashalot was unhurt in the incident" or similar.

The editorial decision to use this picture won't have been taken lightly, and I expect that in response to a bulging mailbag Tim Bowdler will be explaining himself next week. I found the picture less tasteless than I thought I might when I saw it after reading some of these comments. I found it quite powerful and not as voyeuristic as it could have been. I found the reporting set an appropriate tone.

Let's not finger-pointing at the mags for this. Everyone is doing it now - only yesterday there was live TV coverage of the emergency landing of a stricken aircraft in LA, presumably so that if it all went wrong the horrific fireball and scenes of death and calamity could be shown live to millions. Maybe the whole world is getting a little more sick.

[Graham Goodwin]

Sorry but "everyone" isn't doing it.

You'll no doubt have seen my post in the Autosport thread below on the same subject but the fact of the matter is that this seems to relate directly to the issue that John McIlroy dealt with a couple of weeks ago along the lines of - Our covers are chosen to attract new readership - frankly I don't think I'll ever be desperate enough for cash to play with people's emotions in the manner this does.

[Ian Sowman]

Sorry Graham - "everyone" is a horrible generalisation that many people (which is probably the phrase I should have used), myself included, mistakenly use on occasion.

[COLIN STUBBS]

its ok us talking about this in the forum,but perhaps not to be writing to mn about it. im sure they will know what people are thinking. our thoughts are with his family and friends. they do not need to be upset any more.

[Graham Goodwin]

There's no reason whatsoever not to write to MN - you could always send it 'not for publicaton' . The best way of ensuring that somebody know's you are offended is to tell them so.

[chezza]

But do they know what were thinking...they may think they have it right but they don't know anyones opinion unless you tell them. Write to MN they need telling.

[jna]

The way business as a whole operates these days, letters of complaint will inexorably drive those in decision making positions to follow up with more of the same.

Off the subject, but this is an example of profiteering from carnage by model manufacturers. Two firms chose to issue Porsche 956s driven by both Bellof and Gartner from the very races where each dreadful accident occurred. They had plenty of other options, but one must assume that they considered these versions would sell more. Oh, and yes, I have them in my collection, before anyone asks, but I regret what they did.

[krt917]

Originally Posted by Ian Sowman

Let's not finger-pointing at the mags for this. Everyone is doing it now - only yesterday there was live TV coverage of the emergency landing of a stricken aircraft in LA, presumably so that if it all went wrong the horrific fireball and scenes of death and calamity could be shown live to millions. Maybe the whole world is getting a little more sick.

Very well put Ian (apart from using the word 'Everyone'!). I think that it seems to be an aspect of modern society that many people are attracted to, or find fascinating, tragic and horrific events. Seeing as the Western world is business driven, this inevitably leads to insensitive portrayals of certain events to attract people.

I don't believe that accidents, particularly ones where injury has occurred, should be hidden from view because often lessons can be learned, but there are ways of presenting them sympathetically, and ways of presenting them sensationally.

I haven't seen the Autosport or MSN covers yet this week, so will refrain from commenting on those particular issues.

[Graham Goodwin]

The basic point here is that the images featured

1 - at all and
2 - on the cover

As several people have pointed out here there are more appropriate ways of marking the passing of a well loved competitor - featuring the photographs on the cover rather smacks of attention grabbing.

[Craner Curves]

Tim Bowdler has issued a response on www.motorsport-news.co.uk

I was shocked when I read the threads about it, but when my copy arrived, I wasn't really that shocked. I would say it was sensitively done. But that's just my opinion.

[Ian Sowman]

I have to say, I do think his response is a very good one.

[jna]

Yes, very eloquent, but "this was not a commercial decision"! Sorry, I don't wear that one.

[BertMk2]

Yep, it's a good response and I can see where he's coming from. Still not my cup of tea though.

[Hip Priest]

Tim Bowdler's reply was very well written, and I respect him for giving his explanation.

I would however, like to hear his views on why recent covers were taken up with pictures of accidents featuring Andrew Bentley & Ryan Briscoe.

They were not important news stories, and therefore had no place on the front cover. It smacks of a desperate attempt to attract that particular sort of casual fan, who enjoys watching car crashes.